[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]
nobody writes a very nice, non-confrontational and well thought out
letter supporting his case (and ignoring the oddness of copyrighting
religous materials). but i have some questions that weren't discussed
when i took business law 101 a few years ago:
[email protected] (Name withheld on request) writes:
> applicable. Damages and an injunction against further
> unauthorized copying and distribution may be obtained against
> infringers and, all unauthorized copies and all materials and
> equipment by which the unauthorized copies may be reproduced
> can be impounded. Unauthorized disclosure of the
> confidential Advanced Technology materials also violates
> applicable trade secrets laws.
i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there
truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of
copyrighted material? are remailer-ops truly in legal danger? what
exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply?
> clients' property rights. Courts are holding such
> contributory infringers liable. Two examples are: Sega
> Enterprises Ltd. v. Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921 (N.D.
> Cal. 1994) and Playboy Enterprises v. Frena, 839 F. Supp.
> 1152 (M.D. Fla. 1993).
what of these cases? is this just an example of typical lawyerly
intimidation tactics? how do you remailer-ops plan to react? my first
instinct (were i running a remailer) would be to ignore it, on grounds
that i wouldn't examine any mail passing through. but if there really
were valid precedent in this matter... (has anyone seen any
well-written lay-person evaluations of the steve jackson case? i read
the ruling, but much of it went in one eye and out the other).
i think the censorship thing is building steam, and we should start
preparing (and informing) ourselves...